Talk:Redshift/Content Moved From Redshift Quantization Dispute June 2006

Catastrophists, creationists, and even geocentrists

I am inspired by ScienceApologist's addition of this sentence to the article on Redshift quantization[1], to add the comment. I am happy to discuss its inclusion and motive as it applies to BOTH articles. --Iantresman 13:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't belong on this article because redshift quantization doesn't belong in this article. --ScienceApologist 13:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So if I can find some verifiable quote from Catastrophists, creationists, and geocentrists criticising "redshift", then that would be fine? Why would it be inappropriate for "redshift" but relevent to "redshift quantization"? --Iantresman 13:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's appropriate on redshift quantization because the main supporters (in number, that is) of redshift quantization are these people. The reason the concept "redshift quantization" even has a page on Wikipedia right now independent of an article on redshift distortions is because these people have picked up the concept and run with it. Arp is probably to blame because he put a section in Seeing Red about the phenomenon and most of these creationists, geocentrists, anti-Bangers read that book and rely on it to criticize standard cosmology. Redshift itself is an observation and is included as a textbook piece of evidence for a variety of phenomena. --ScienceApologist 13:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Utter unveriable garbage. Tifft is a regular career scientist. Arp is a regular career scientists. Bill Napier is a regular career scientist. Indeed ALL the citations for redshift quantization are from regular career scientsits. All the verifiable citations are to peer reviewed journals.

No one isn saying that Tifft and Arp aren't career scientists. What we are saying is that this idea is rescued from obscurity by others who aren't career scientists. --ScienceApologist 14:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are both career scientists and creationists who critisise "redshift", and I can provide numerous veriable citations to the former. And if Web sites are good enough citations for you to use on redshift quantization, then they're good enough for the redshift article, and I'll get those too.

There is a slight problem with your attempt at parity and that is the websites cited at redshift quantization are supporters and not critics of the phenomena listed. --ScienceApologist 14:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind critisim, as long as both articles are treated fairly and equally. --Iantresman 14:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a query about what "fair and equal" means at NPOV. In the mean time, can you perhaps explain why you think the sentence at redshift quantization represents "criticism" of that topic? --ScienceApologist 14:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun a discussion of NPOV issues related to this issuehere. --ScienceApologist 14:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Rescued from obscurity by others who aren't career scientists"? Garbage. Last time I heard, peer review does not go out of its way to solicit opinion specifically from Catastrophists, creationists, and even geocentrists. --Iantresman 14:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, I wasn't discussing whether ideas are "peer reviewed", I was discussing notability. Notability of redshift quantization is derived from its discussion by others. If this was not the case, there wouldn't be an article on the subject in the encyclopedia. --ScienceApologist 14:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garbage. Redshift quantization is notable becaue of Tifft, Napier, Arp, and all those SCIENTISTS who publish in PEER REVIEWED journals. It's no different to suggesting that the Big Bang is popular because of Star Trek viewers. --Iantresman 14:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The dearth of articles on redshift quantization is noticeable in any ADSABS search. There are millions on the Big Bang. --ScienceApologist 14:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And how many peer reviewed articles on redshift quantization mention Catastrophists, creationists, and even geocentrists? I do not dispute that Catastrophists, creationists, and even geocentrists have looked at or even support redshift quantization, but there is no evidence to quantify that support, or how it might even affect it.
50 million people watch Star Trek, so it must of had an effect on the popularity of astronomy topics. Is it relevent. No. --Iantresman 14:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The effect of Star Trek on astronomy is very relevant in terms of its popularity. However, in regards to popularizing individual topics, it really doesn't seem to apply. This is in contrast to the roughly dozen articles or so written on redshift quantization which are notable because creationists, catastrophists, and geocentrists have adopted the subject and boosted it from relative obscurity. The peer review articles don't mention popularization because they only discuss the topics. --ScienceApologist 14:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Find me ANYTHING verifiable which quantifies the significance that Catastrophists, creationists, and geocentrists, have had on the course of redshift quantization... besides your opinion that it has. --Iantresman 15:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to this depends on exactly what you mean by "the course of redshift quantization." If you mean the scientific sub-discipline, then there may be no significance to Catastrophists, creationists, and geocentrists. If you mean the sociological and cultural use of the term, then googling "redshift quantization" along with the other terms shows some significant trends that could be quantified I guess. Flying Jazz 18:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redshift criticism

I've discovered a significant and notable source of criticism on redshift, which I think we should consider including the article. The source is impeccable[2], and it notes many critics. The source mentions:
"... many opponents of the Big Bang including Halton Arp" and indeed there do appear to be hundreds of such critics [3].
The source also mentions creationists critics, and its primary source[4] does indeed make extensive comments on redshift (there are also a few comments on redshift quantization, but they are not relevent here). A second creationist source provided, also has an associated paper [5] that also criticises redshift.
It is estimated that there are some 100+ million creationists in the USA alone,[6] and this must represent a significant view.
There's also a reference to a group called modern geocentrist, where I note an associated critical paper also on redshift [7].
I am a little reluctant to use Web sites as sources, but the empeccable source noted above, seems ok with it. I note that the Cosmological Statement was published in the reputable New Scientists, which I suspect felt that the reliability, and credibility of the original signaturees was notable. About 200 of the other signers all appear associated with academia.
It does seem odd that we don't have a section on Redshift criticism when there are so many critics. --Iantresman 19:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]